Phil Gramm: It Was an Outrage That “Exploited” AT&T CEO Got Only $75 Million at Retirement

originally posted by: neo96
Lets see now.

AT and T.

en.wikipedia.org...

Whose revenue in 2014 was $132 billion dollars.

Whose operating income was $13 billion dollars.

Whose total assets was $292 billion dollars.

Let the CEO who made decisions to keep,grow, and maintain those figures.

Walked away with a measely $75 million bucks.

Well I wouldn't be too happy either.

My heart bleeds......


Private sector so his problem if he got "shafted"


$75 million is not exploited.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Answer

I don't have a problem with ceo's making 'bank'.

That use to be the American dream.

Why settle for 'scraps'?

$75 million is scraps?

a reply to: crazyewok

Guess someone didn't read AT and T stats.

Hundreds of billions of dollars.

Get'ss $75 million after TAXES.

Yeah SCRAPS.

Compared to $300 billion+

I though the american dream was a house, a white picket fence, two and a half children, a nice yard and a dog...

When did it turn into three yachts, 100 cars, 5 estates, and tax evasion?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Guess someone didn't read AT and T stats.

Hundreds of billions of dollars.

Get'ss $75 million after TAXES.

Yeah SCRAPS.

Compared to $300 billion+

Thats between him and the company

A politician should not be bringing such things up as it should be outside his remit!


And $75 million is not scraps not matter what you say!

Certianly dont think big goverment should intervene!

a reply to: crazyewok

I have had enough of bash the rich guy.

I have had enough of rich bashing in general.

Hell the 99% should be jumping up, and down considering current federal spending on the poor, and middle class is over $2.2 trillion dollars per annum.

Hell since the war on poverty began $22 trillion has been spent on the 99%.

But hell that ain't enough for them they want more.

So what is the DIFFERENCE between the 99% and the 1% ?

NONE.

Have fun with the thread moving on to something that has more substance.

a reply to: neo96

No millions of people EVERY day play the lottery to get what there B ?

People get paid to play the lottery? Does the lottery pay people to stand around and pick numbers?

Btw enough with the Political Trolling there AT and T is a TELECOM corps.

It's not political trolling when a politician is the one that made the ignorant statement.

a reply to: neo96

The issue there is the problem is that those programs should be unnecessary in the first place. They're there because the rich would rather exploit their workers than pay them.

People who have jobs and work, still need government help to feed themselves and live. They shouldn't need that.

If the wealthy had done things right, we wouldn't need those programs. It's the wealthy 1% with their tax free off shore accounts making us dump all our money into the government so we can survive on their # pay.

In essence because they don't want to pay us, they make us pay each other. They're making the middle class and rich (but not one percenters) foot the bill for them while they soak up more of the wealth.

It's not the poor vs. the rich, it should be everyone verses the 1%ers cause the millionaires aren't the problem

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer


Whitacre actually received a retirement package totaling $158 million.

Gramm is a classic example of what is wrong with American politics.

Taking it one step further - just remember that $15/hour is too much.......

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok


Hell the 99% should be jumping up, and down considering current federal spending on the poor, and middle class is over $2.2 trillion dollars per annum.

.......

Have fun with the thread moving on to something that has more substance.

yes - more substance - excellent idea - how about evidence for that $2 trillion per annum figure??

a reply to: neo96

I have had enough of bash the rich guy. I have had enough of rich bashing in general.

Hell the 99% should be jumping up, and down considering current federal spending on the poor, and middle class is over $2.2 trillion dollars per annum.

Yes wasn't it such a great idea to give tax breaks to companies so they could move the jobs overseas the jobs that kept people from needing government assistance.

Hell since the war on poverty began $22 trillion has been spent on the 99%.

And banks like JP Morgan just couldn't be happier because every new person on assistance means more money for them.

So what is the DIFFERENCE between the 99% and the 1% ? NONE.

Wow somebody needs a reality check. Saying there is no difference between the 99% and the one percent is like saying there is no difference between pony league football and the NFL.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok


Hell the 99% should be jumping up, and down considering current federal spending on the poor, and middle class is over $2.2 trillion dollars per annum.

.......

Have fun with the thread moving on to something that has more substance.

yes - more substance - excellent idea - how about evidence for that $2 trillion per annum figure??

Evidence eh.

Alrightie.

www.usdebtclock.org...

Current federal spending.

In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services.

www.wsj.com...

We’ve Spent $22 Trillion on War on Poverty. What Have We Achieved?

But hey who cares let's whine about some rich guy not happy with what he gets.

a reply to: buster2010

Yes wasn't it such a great idea to give tax breaks to companies so they could move the jobs overseas the jobs that kept people from needing government assistance.

That is not why companies outsource, and you know it.

Companies move jobs over seas simple because it's cheaper to make it over there, and ship it back.

And you full well know that today EVERYONE is paying more the for LABOR to make products, and it costs to make them period.

But hey blame them companies. Blah,blah,blah.,

Someone does need a reality check,

Sure the hell isn't me,

a reply to: neo96

The war on poverty cannot be won by government spending, as the government spending relies on the same ever decreasing pool of wealth the one percent is soaking up.

All the "war on poverty" is doing is redistributing the wealth amongst all of us that aren't the 1% to keep us afloat as the 1% take more and more from the economy for themselves. It's not fighting poverty, it's keeping us complacent while the vampires suck us dry.

a reply to: Puppylove

The war on poverty cannot be won by government spending, as the government spending relies on the same ever decreasing pool of wealth the one percent is soaking up.

Is that so?

When all the government has to do is print more money out of thin air, or what's that other thing ?

Oh yeah don't create so many taxes.

Both of those suck money up. DESTROYS it.

originally posted by: neo96



Evidence eh.

Alrightie.

www.usdebtclock.org...

Yes please - and that's not it.....

Current federal spending.

In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services.

www.wsj.com...

well the quote you give is certainly there.........but of course it does nothing to support your contention that this is all spent of the poor and middle classes......

We’ve Spent $22 Trillion on War on Poverty. What Have We Achieved?

and nothing there either.

But hey who cares let's whine about some rich guy not happy with what he gets.

Not at all - the OP isn't about the fact that some guy got a fortune - the thread is about an idiot politician complaining that this "poor rich fella" didn't get ENOUGH!!

Perhaps you could address that instead of your imagined wrongs.

a reply to: neo96

They're there because the lobbyists that pay the politicians on both sides made it that way. It's all part of the whole thing. This is what the 1% are paying the democrats for.

It's all one big sham.

Is cheaper for the 1% to set these programs up so we pay each from the every shrinking pool of wealth to keep us complacent, while they soak up the wealth. It still goes back to the 1%. Them and their lobbyists OWN our politicians that make our laws and decide how we're taxed.

Blaming the government and ignoring the 1% is ridiculous. Is like blaming the hitman for your husbands murder and ignoring it was your ex-husband that hired him and giving your ex a free pass.

Addendum: It's ingenious really. Use the democrats to make us pay for the problems they caused out of our own pockets. Use the republicans to protect their shady corporate practices. While pretending both sides are opposed to each other by create false frictions that they don't give two craps about but know we do. They don't care about gays, christians, abortion, ect, but we do, and they can use all that to get us to vote whichever sides policies they want to get in this year by playing ping pong on our emotions while they rape our pockets.

Even better, use this to create divisions so we don't unite against them. Race wars, ect...

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Answer

The democrats are just as owned by the corporate lobbyists as the republicans, same with conservative and progressive politicians. Follow the money, it's clear as day. But no, don't look behind the curtain.

It's clearly a dem/republic issue, republicans good, dems bad or vice versa... ludicrous

This is what it really comes down to.
AT&T would not have been as "successful" and his retirement package would not have been as much if it was not for purchasing politicians. That was part of the "talent" that was put forth.

The Big Monoliths in this country absolutely hate competition based capitalism.

71 out of 97 AT&T Lobbyists had previously held government jobs.
Nothing can go wrong there.


www.opensecrets.org...

CONTRIBUTIONS
$4,274,740
ranks 42 of 16,872

LOBBYING
$14,200,000 (2014)
$15,935,000 (2013)
ranks 18 of 4,067 in 2014

Phil Gramm is no one to listen to given his top donors such as corrupt Enron, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and so on.

www.opensecrets.org...

The logic of Mr. Gramm is flawed. His argument is that the CEO added billions of dollars worth of value over his tenure, and that as a result of doing so he was only given $150 million which is a small percentage of the total. The problem is that his position implies that all of the work everyone below the CEO did wasn't adding any value to the company. Everyone from the lowly CSR, to the lineman, to the payment processor, and all the way up to the second in command over the entire company was also adding value. You can't assign all of that added value to just one person. How much did the CEO personally add in a company made up of thousands of employees?

originally posted by: neo96
What's the purpose of those 'awesome' college degree's eh.

To do a job you want to do, rather than a job you have to do.

originally posted by: Answer
How much value did the CEO add to the company?

How much value did the average employee add to the company?

How easy would it be to replace the CEO with someone who has the same level of experience? How easy would it be to replace the average employee with someone who has the same level of experience?

It's tough to measure. There's only 1 CEO in any given company so there's not a pool of employees to compare him to, unlike the average employee where you can generate very clear performance metrics. What was the opportunity cost of hiring this CEO over another one?

a reply to: xuenchen

Millions of what?

Trust fund kids and stockbrokers?